5: Listing the Minimal Historical Facts
5
Listing the Minimal Historical Facts
Critical scholarship during the past few decades has generally inclined toward a more positive treatment of the data surrounding the New Testament accounts of the historical Jesus and his death and resurrection in particular. While there are a variety of trends, these patterns are probably the most constructive and affirmative that scholarly research has witnessed in the past two centuries. Stretching back through the old German liberalism of Friedrich Schleiermacher, David Strauss, and Otto Pfleiderer, to the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth and like-minded thinkers, to the later trends introduced by Rudolf Bultmann and his students, these more optimistic trends at present seem to be a major result of the research done by the Third Quest for the historical Jesus.1
One of the chief reasons for this change has been the application of critical principles of historiography to the central components surrounding these events, including Jesus’s death by crucifixion, the disciples’ experiences that convinced them that they had actually seen the risen Jesus, the exceptionally early reports of these events, the disciples’ transformations and willingness to die for this resurrection message, the centrality of this teaching, and the conversions of James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul due to their own experiences. These facets are recognized by the great majority of critical scholars, the vast preponderance of whom arrived at these conclusions without believing in what we termed in chapter 1 as “the general reliability of the New Testament.” How and why did the scholarly consensus arrive at this point? How have scholars recognized the effectiveness of arguing from historical facts that can be independently established for strong reasons?
Our purpose here is to continue building in the direction begun in the previous chapter by chronicling more of the trends among critical researchers who outline or discuss facts from the end of Jesus’s life that may be known according to the recognized canons of historiography and accepted as such by the majority of contemporary researchers. Though the actual evidences for these data are not provided in this chapter, these scholarly lists may serve as a type of guideline for today’s tendencies as sort of a common ground or starting point. Then we will turn to the lists of data from Jesus’s last days that we have termed the “minimal facts” approach—sort of a “lowest common denominator” groundwork for much of what comes in the later chapters in this study.
Contemporary Critical Scholars and the Search for the Historical Facts about Jesus
In recent historical Jesus research, many critical scholars prefer to begin their exploration by stating at the outset a list of critically derived data that we may know about Jesus. This practice is part of a general tendency among historical researchers as a whole to begin building cases based on what is taken to be a consensus historical position, what historian Christopher Blake has called the “very considerable part of history which is acceptable to the community of professional historians.”2 As Richard Evans has remarked more recently, it is preferable to employ “a wide measure of agreement which transcends not only individuals but also communities of scholars.”3 Michael Licona summarizes the issue this way: “A consensus opinion can be valuable for recognizing objectivity when the group is composed of scholars from all interested camps with the exception of some fringe positions.”4
What would such lists look like as utilized by critical scholars?5 Robert Funk, founder and well-known member of the skeptical Jesus Seminar,6 in his book Honest to Jesus, includes subheads such as “Assorted Facts and Figures” and “The Death of Jesus: The Bare Facts.”7 In spite of his skepticism, Funk states that “there are a few assorted facts to which most critical scholars subscribe.” Then he declares rather amazingly: “These are data that a disinterested, neutral observer could have attested.”8 Over many pages, he records a surprisingly long list of data, including the likelihood that Jesus was a teacher, healer, and exorcist. At the end of Jesus’s life, for our purposes, the Romans executed Jesus by crucifixion under the rulers Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate: “The bare facts that Jesus was executed in Jerusalem on the authority of Pontius Pilate have stood up under close and repeated examination.”9 According to Funk, Jesus also may have been buried in a common grave.
Afterward, Funk holds that the disciples were disappointed, frightened, and fled the Jerusalem area. They were convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead and had appeared to them in a “series of visions” that included appearances to the previously skeptical James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus. The earliest reports of Jesus’s appearances identify him as a figure shown luminously, accompanied by a blinding light, and imparting a revelatory communication. This deep conviction that Jesus had been raised from the dead became the “cornerstone” of their confession that Jesus was divine and seated at God’s right hand. Their lives were changed, as these events were “the inauguration of the apostolic mission of the church.” Later, Peter and Paul both died between AD 60 and 70.10
Another list of recognized data is that of Oxford University Jewish historian Geza Vermes, who begins one of his early volumes by building on a similar standard: “Let us begin then by selecting a few non-controversial facts concerning Jesus’ life and activity, and endeavor to build on these foundations.”11 In Vermes’s initial context, this critical historian mentions only a few of these ancient reports. Some examples, like those in Funk’s list, include Jesus being known “chiefly as a charismatic teacher, healer, and exorcist.” His teachings were “essentially Jewish,” such as his agreement with the Pharisees that the resurrection of the dead would be a bodily event. He was crucified and executed by Pontius Pilate.12 Adding that “no serious scholar of today would query the main threads of the narratives,” Vermes mentions other items, such as Jesus’s public ministry during John the Baptist’s preaching of repentance in Galilee, Jesus’s later clash with the Jerusalem authorities, and his being put to death on a cross.13
More specifically addressing other matters in terms of this study, one of Vermes’s later books is titled The Resurrection. As in his earlier works, and in keeping with his own discipline, he begins by saying in the foreword that he is most interested in the work of the historian and the scholarly task of studying which items from the New Testament are grounded in fact. He discusses acting like a detective and unraveling and separating legendary elements from those that are “hardly questionable.”14 He describes his research this way: “The present study is essentially devoted to the evidence” pertaining to the resurrection as developed in the New Testament.15
Somewhat surprisingly, Vermes refers to the resurrection as “an unparalleled phenomenon in history” and as “unparalleled in the religions of antiquity.”16 Here he reaches some intriguing conclusions, such as the available facts favoring both the empty tomb and even Jesus’s apparitions or visions being historical occurrences! The empty tomb is established by several things, predominantly by the embarrassing testimony of the women given the male-controlled Jewish culture, but also by the conflicting reports of the names and number of women as well as the fact that the empty tomb “is clearly an early tradition.” The apparitions or visions of Jesus are supported by being recounted in several sources, especially as reported by Paul in 1 Cor 15:1–8, who took them from an earlier tradition.17
Can alternative hypotheses account for this same data? Vermes goes as far as to entertain eight other options, most of which are naturalistic suppositions. After examining each one briefly, he “discounted the two extremes,” leaving the six others, but concludes, “All in all, none of the six suggested theories stands up to strict scrutiny.” So while none of the other possibilities work, nonetheless we must leave the matter right there, for resurrection cannot be proven.18
Having written some epochal works while teaching at Oxford, Cambridge, and Duke, E. P. Sanders ranks as one of the most influential scholars in the Third Quest for the historical Jesus. He initiates one of his major studies by declaring, “No one will dispute that . . . one should begin with what is relatively secure and work out to more uncertain points.”19 Then Sanders turns to “several facts about Jesus’ career and its aftermath which can be known beyond doubt.” Among these lofty, “almost indisputable facts,” he lists Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist, his being a preacher and healer, gathering disciples, and later dying by crucifixion outside Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. His followers continued the movement after his death.20 In fact, “that the resurrection experiences of the disciples provided the motivating force behind the proclamation of Jesus as the Christ and as Lord, and much of its content, is not in dispute.”21
Nearing the end of his volume, Sanders concludes that he attempted “to rest the main themes of the study on unassailable data.” Here he unpacks his list a bit more with regard to what we can know about the historical Jesus and how certain we can be of each assertion, including Jesus’s work with his apostles, his preaching of the kingdom of God, and that those who accepted his message would share in his kingdom.22
In a later volume on the historical Jesus, Sanders began in much the same way by asserting that he would once again utilize the most certain historical evidence, employing facts that are “almost beyond dispute.” From the end of Jesus’s life, Sanders lists his arrest and interrogation, along with his being executed by Pilate. The “equally secure facts” include Jesus’s disciples fleeing, after which “they saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death.”23 Some reported that Jesus’s tomb was found empty. Then Sanders repeats, “Thereafter his followers saw him.”24
Sanders concludes in an epilogue on the resurrection: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact.” Moreover, numerous alternative theories are unsuccessful in explaining these events in natural terms. For example, he “was not a ghost, or a resuscitated corpse, or a badly wounded man limping around.” Nor was this a case of deliberate fraud or “mass hysteria.” But “we know that after his death his followers experienced what they described as the ‘resurrection’: the appearance of a living but transformed person who had actually died. They believed this, they lived it, and they died for it.” Though we cannot reconstruct these things precisely, “what is raised is a spiritual body,” not “a resuscitated corpse.”25
Jesus’s followers fashioned a community after these events. It was these “resurrection experiences” that convinced the disciples “that in Jesus’ life and death God had acted to save humanity.” His followers taught “faith in Jesus” and even conferred titles upon him such as Messiah, Lord, and Son of God.26
Like many other influential historical Jesus scholars, Jürgen Moltmann also provides a list of what he terms “the relatively well-attested historical facts” surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. He includes Jesus’s public crucifixion and death, along with the disciples fleeing to Galilee, obviously in “disappointment and fear.” Afterwards, the only events “that can actually be proved” are the women’s message of the empty tomb and the disciples’ assertions that they had seen Jesus Christ’s appearances in Galilee. The earliest report that we have of the appearances is Paul’s creedal list in 1 Cor 15:3 and following, as well as his own testimony in 1 Cor 9:1. All of the witnesses agreed that Jesus was alive in “the eternal glory of God.” Moltmann thinks that these appearances were manifested in the form of “visions of a supernatural light” but were in some sense inward experiences that changed the disciples’ lives and existence, so that they were even willing to risk everything for the proclamation of this message.27
What sorts of interests drive these recent trends among major critical scholars toward listing historical facts regarding Jesus that may serve as a bit of common ground on which to build other historical conclusions? Before the Third-Quest-for-the-historical-Jesus scholars in the later twentieth century, this was not always the critical pathway that was taken. In fact, during Bultmann’s heyday and its aftermath, a few decades were generally characterized by an avoidance of searching for the Jesus of history.28 Sometimes termed the “No Quest” period, historical studies were few and far between.29
Even when the fairly abbreviated “New Quest for the historical Jesus” movement (as it was called then)30 followed, led by several of Bultmann’s former students, the position often failed to stray very far away from the Bultmannian tree.31 While there was a brief emphasis on not divorcing Jesus entirely from history, and though some of the inroads were fairly distinctive, original, and crucial, too many aspects were also quite similar, somewhat repetitive, and almost “wooden.”
Nonetheless, from this progress, other trends that had been emerging in critical circles for decades began to achieve more prominence. One major advance for our purposes in particular was that scholars moved toward the development of specific textual “criteria” for ascertaining more exactly which sayings or events in Jesus’s life could be declared historical, according to different degrees of likelihood.32 This was an important step in that such criteria provided more particular demarcations of an epistemic nature, assisting in determining when certain levels of evidence or other standards had most likely been met and to what extent. This development of historical markers had become exceptionally crucial, though not without developing its own issues and needs for additional clarification.
Another noteworthy elucidation is that these criteria are not specifically New Testament tools per se. Rather, these delineations have also been utilized by secular historians.33 This is hardly surprising given that this enterprise is of a historical nature.34
One of the early scholars to move in this direction was University of Chicago Divinity School New Testament professor Norman Perrin. Placing himself in the tradition just described, he also freely explains his differences.35 Although there is much territory in between the views described earlier in this chapter and Perrin’s position, he still begins his volume with some reminiscent words. He had hoped to “represent an irreducible minimum of historical knowledge available to us at this present time.”36 His work is an early and obviously fairly guarded form of utilizing these textual criteria and applying them in the context of the Gospels to ascertain a few more historical nuggets.37 Robert Stein’s volume presents a more recent treatment of a greater number of these criteria, exploring both the possibilities as well as the potential problems with these methods.38
A decade later, in his last book, Perrin certainly moves even further in this direction, but he was still a significant ways away from the methodology of the Third Quest. In particular, while dealing specifically with the resurrection, it is clear at several junctures that he had certainly progressed a fair distance from certain aspects of the Bultmannian shadow that was still cast quite widely over many particular publications and areas of study at that time. Though definitely not moving all the way out, Perrin had taken some large steps toward the emerging new trends. After all, how many researchers at this time and scholarly juncture had written a volume on historical aspects of Jesus’s resurrection?39
Perrin considers the Gospel treatments of the empty tomb plus the narratives of Jesus’s resurrection appearances to be mythological in character while still acknowledging the presence of the early formula in 1 Cor 15:3–7, which contains the list of Jesus’s resurrection appearances to both individuals and groups, emphasizing the critical importance of Paul’s personal witness. Mentioning some recent “evidence” for the resurrection appearances, Perrin goes as far as to observe that in contrast with the late message of the empty tomb, “the more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.” Perrin describes these events as the disciples being “granted a vision of Jesus which convinced them that God had vindicated Jesus out of his death,” thereby commissioning them to service. Yet Perrin adds that he is “reluctant to say more than that because I believe that I have reached the limits of what the testimony of Paul entitles me to say.”40
Although sporting a far different viewpoint and style than Perrin, Bart Ehrman is another critical scholar who utilizes and applies the textual criteria to the Gospel texts,41 enabling him to arrive at a historical list of probable teachings and events in Jesus’s ministry.42 Ehrman singles out Jesus’s teachings, such as predicting the destruction of the Jewish temple and the coming of God’s kingdom, including the necessary entrance requirements. We also know that Jesus did certain things, such as being baptized by John the Baptist, calling and teaching twelve disciples, fraternizing with the despised and outcast in Jewish society, and having a reputation as a healer and exorcist,43 among other items.44
Ehrman states, “The most certain element of the tradition about Jesus is that he was crucified on the orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. The crucifixion is independently attested in a wide array of sources and is not the sort of thing that believers would want to make up about the person proclaimed to be the powerful Son of God.” We also know some political circumstances and medical details surrounding Jesus’s death.45
After the death of Jesus, Christianity began. Ehrman states this about the early disciples:
Historians, of course, have no difficulty speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death.46
Elsewhere, Ehrman extends this last comment concerning those disciples who thought they had seen Jesus alive again after his death to his brother James (whom Paul knew) and to at least one group of believers: the women. On the last appearance to the women, Ehrman asserts, “We can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he [Jesus] soon appeared to them [the women], convincing them that he had been raised from the dead.”47
Of course, it absolutely goes without saying that simply to list facts as historical, or to assent to such, does not make them so! Assertions and opinions are not arguments! Rather, our purpose so far in this chapter has been to note a few trends across some potentially intriguing theological barriers that illustrate what appears to be a fairly popular tendency of late to note and largely agree on some of the major happenings at the end of Jesus’s life. Many of the authors we have surveyed also provide the reasons for their claims. But it remains for us in later chapters to delineate the groundwork on which these historical occurrences are based. After all, we have stated a number of times that the initial and easily the most crucial rule for a minimal fact to fulfill is that each one must be well evidenced by strong indications of historicity.
So we do not have to belabor this survey any longer. It just appears to be at least a fairly popular trend today for critical scholars to begin their studies by recounting up front what a “lowest common denominator” list of historical teachings and events in Jesus’s life might look like.48 Of course, nothing here gets a free pass; anything on these scholarly lists can be questioned. But it still seems to be the case that, if done carefully, such a recounting can be a very helpful starting place, and for more than one reason. Usually employed as common ground for discussion, it can even be a helpful indication of where our dialogue partners are coming from, or what methodology they may prefer. Intriguingly, some scholars whose personal methodologies eschew or at least downplay approaches they consider to be overly concerned with a heavily historical research emphasis still tend to affirm the value of recognizing at least some “short list” of central historical essentials that are nonetheless quite obvious and well positioned. Examples are not difficult to locate.49
The Known or Accepted Historical Facts
Some amazing observations emerge from the preceding overview. In spite of having a decent range of theological and philosophical positions represented (although the absence of many conservatives may be noteworthy), there was still much widespread agreement concerning a fair rendering of the historical facts at the end of Jesus’s life. Initially, the scholars surveyed thought not only that a list of credible historical facts could be known about Jesus, but that this could serve as a general, common foundation for dialogue. This idea at the outset seems to follow a spirit at least somewhat similar to the helpfulness of a factual background for Jesus, as we have been discussing. It could be added that this method should proceed further in pushing for the best explanation for these data.
Rather incredibly, these critical scholars above even agree regarding items such as Jesus being widely accepted and recognized by friends and foes alike as a miracle worker and exorcist. He bothered the authorities and was crucified and died at the hands of the Romans. His disciples were disillusioned and dispirited after his death just before having real experiences of some kind. The disciples concluded that these experiences were appearances of the risen Jesus who actually had been raised from the dead as indicated by the reports of some who made this resurrection claim. In addition to several other items, this is quite a historical core, largely agreed to by a widespread diversity of researchers including a number of critical investigators.
What makes this summation all the more impressive is that, far from very few of these scholars being conservative, the preceding list includes a Jewish historian who was agnostic regarding the nature of Jesus’s appearances (Vermes), a well-known and well-published atheist New Testament scholar (Ehrman), cofounders of the Jesus Seminar (Funk, Borg), another critical New Testament scholar influenced by the skeptical Second or New Quest movement for the historical Jesus (Perrin), plus a post-Bultmannian New Testament researcher who differed significantly on the nature of the resurrection appearances (Marxsen). And while all of these critical scholars allow historical items such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is a very influential, self-styled “liberal, modern, secularized Protestant”50 (Sanders) who states more than once that the general consensus among scholars is that Jesus actually did appear in some sense to his disciples after his death. This is simply remarkable.
In the previous chapter we recounted details concerning two lists of historical facts from the end of Jesus’s life that are very widely accepted as historical: a longer one of about a dozen or so items, and another much shorter one ranging from three to seven of these same facts, depending on the audience. Both lists are very well recognized by a high percentage of critical scholars who have studied this material. The chief reason for this widespread recognition is the far more crucial consideration that strong data stand behind each of these details.
New Testament specialists, theologians, historians, classicists, philosophers and other scholars of various relevant disciplines, persuasions, and schools of thought obviously still differ, sometimes widely, on the amount of historical content contained in the Gospels and other early material, such as the interaction of one’s worldviews, questions pertaining to miracles, and other relevant topics. Yet, as we have seen, this does not impede them from a general consensus regarding a number of incidents over the last days of Jesus’s life. As pointed out in the previous chapter, the belief in the general reliability of the texts in question is not any sort of prerequisite for establishing these particular historical facts.
The result is that a wide swath of scholars still usually recognize that there are a number of known historical facts over this time in Jesus’s life. We will list here a dozen facts that are acknowledged as historical by virtually all researchers who investigate this area, regardless of their many differences in other tendencies.51 As mentioned earlier, we will not argue here for the historicity of these items but will delay such a defense until later chapters. This list is simply for the sake of getting this data out on the table, so to speak.
The Known or Accepted Historical Facts
These facts along with their supporting considerations will play a vital role in our study of Jesus’s resurrection. While we have pointed out clearly that scholars of course do not necessarily take the same angle on these events or draw the same interpretations or implications from them, the general agreement here among scholars of different theoretical persuasions is simply remarkable. With the exception of the empty tomb (and to some extent a private burial), which is still accepted by a clear majority of critical scholars, it is virtually unanimous that these events most probably happened. As far as the causal or interpretational differences of these facts, those cannot be either ignored or taken for granted, but must be discussed and evaluated as well.
We have regularly argued that, without much question, the most widely held historical events from Jesus’s entire life is that Jesus died and that his disciples were absolutely convinced that they had seen him alive again. We will return later to the historical foundations for these and other particulars.
The Minimal Facts
From the enumeration of the ten to twelve critically recognized facts such as those above, the shorter minimal facts list has received most of the attention. Numbering anywhere from three to seven items, the evidence in support of this more diminutive case contains the material that is most essential to the overall research that addresses the historicity of the occurrences in question.54
Here we will limit our primary discussion in this study to just six of the twelve facts.55 In addition, one of the other events above will be included because it meets the first and most crucial criterion of being evidentially as strong as several of the remaining considerations, but is still not considered as one of the six minimal facts since it is does not strictly meet the second standard of being almost unanimously recognized by critical scholars.56 Here is the list of the six minimal facts plus one:
The Minimal Facts (6 + 1)
+ 1 The private tomb in which Jesus was probably buried was discovered to be empty shortly after his death.
It was not our intent in this chapter to unpack these minimal facts any further. Our purpose was rather to simply state both the longer and shorter lists along with some of the background behind them to have an overlay of the “big picture.” We will simply add at the outset that the number of critical scholars who variously endorse, accept, or just plain concede these historical facts is amazingly both strong and diverse. Even samplings of such a compilation would be absolutely huge.
Another consideration should be kept in mind here. The minimal facts are not separate, sterile entities in and of themselves. Like historical facts in general, each one is recognized as an event precisely because it is initially confirmed by other considerations (sometimes a good many) that point to and establish it. There are numerous other indications that lead to and strongly favor every one of these facts. So it is important to note that a group of established and recognized facts are not stand-alone islands. They are themselves part of a larger foundation of material. Scholars sift and debate this entire process from start to finish. We must consider these underlying strata to ascertain if they indeed support these larger facts that we have just listed.
Conclusion
We remarked in the prior chapter that a fair number of scholars still build what might be thought of as a “top-down” case for the New Testament, establishing a reliable roof under which historical facts can be unpacked. While this is chiefly the common approach of more conservative researchers, we saw that a number of moderate critical scholars have also argued in this direction. Further, even a few more skeptical scholars have themselves taken some distinct steps of such a wider ranging nature as well.
Although this may be a different way to think about it for some, at least the more skeptical scholars tend to build their case by working from the ground up, often just one fact at a time, by utilizing the historical criteria and other recognized methods. Like the bricklayer, if they have a sufficient number of blocks, they may be able to construct a wall. It may be slower work, but what emerges can be the difference between a brick wall and a wooden fence. Wooden fences are still useful and sometimes both less expensive as well as necessary, though brick walls usually fare better in a storm.
But to follow this imprecise metaphor in terms of the academic’s situation, the bricklayer’s wall may be far smaller, since with more skeptical scholars it is often the case that far fewer bricks are thought to be available. It was our purpose in this chapter simply to outline a few of those more critical approaches. However, the scholars who build the wooden fences may try to convince their more skeptical colleagues that their methods can still work as well, at the very least in a supplemental sense, especially in certain helpful circumstances.
The minimal facts method is much closer to the bricklayer’s “bottom-up” approach. It seeks to produce an array of details pointing in the direction of particular historical facts. It is our goal as we move along throughout this study to ascertain if we have a strong enough foundation for such a case as well as to take at least some preliminary steps regarding the implications of such a case.
Notes
1 This moniker has stuck at least since Neill and Wright, Interpretation of the New Testament, 379 (see chap. 4, n. 16). For an overview of details and trends in this movement, see pages 379–403. Interestingly, James Charlesworth points out in his list of twenty areas of consensus among Jesus researchers that “in contrast to Bultmann’s time, it is now being recognized that there is considerable and reliable bedrock historical material in the Gospels.” See Charlesworth, “Jesus Research Expands with Chaotic Creativity,” in Images of Jesus Today, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), 6.
2 Christopher Blake, “Can History Be Objective?,” 331 (see chap. 3, n. 56).
3 Richard J. Evans, In Defense of History (New York: Norton, 1999), 110.
4 Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 64 (see chap. 2, n. 13). As an example of such a “fringe” group in this context, Licona cites a number of mainline scholars who dispute very strongly the theses of the Jesus mythicists (62–63).
5 As mentioned above, in this chapter we will only be listing these facts, not explicating, supporting, or critiquing them.
6 According to their group statement, the Jesus Seminar rejects 82 percent of the words of Jesus as reported in the Gospels. Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 5 (see chap. 2, n. 19).
7 Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 32 and 220, respectively.
8 Funk, 32, 33. Actually, the second comment is rather incredible. It is simply startling that, given the current mindset of scholarship across a broad spectrum of thought, Funk thinks that there are even such things as “neutral observers,” especially in that the moment we observe anything, we are no longer neutral due to our having our own angle and perspective. But that he thinks this only seems to make him sound even more sure about these historical facts, not to mention being somewhat out of step with critical research.
9 Funk, 220.
10 Funk repeats these and other events over the span of many pages (32–40, 220–22, 264–71). Throughout, he often implies that, besides explaining his own position, he is either speaking on behalf of the Jesus Seminar or at least giving their views (as indicated on 34, 41, 220, 259, and so on).
11 Geza Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 3.
12 Vermes, 3–6.
13 Vermes, 19–20.
14 Geza Vermes, The Resurrection (London: Penguin, 2008), x.
15 Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism, 9.
16 Vermes, 2 and 5, respectively.
17 Vermes, esp. 121–22, 141–42.
18 Vermes, 142–49.
19 E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 3.
20 Sanders, 10–11, 340.
21 Sanders, 19.
22 Sanders, 321–27.
23 E. P. Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 6, 10–11 (see chap. 1, n. 44).
24 Sanders, 13–14.
25 Sanders, chap. 17, esp. 277–80. Sanders thinks that still more relevant data can also be known regarding the historical Jesus. Another example is his note that Jesus had a brother named James (Jesus and Judaism, 357n19) who was an unbeliever before but had become a believer and a leader in the early church after Jesus’s resurrection (Historical Figure of Jesus, 125–26). James died, presumably as a martyr, at the instigation of the high priest Ananus (Historical Figure of Jesus, 267).
26 Sanders, Historical Figure of Jesus, 13–14.
27 Jürgen Moltmann, “Resurrection of Christ,” 74–75 (see chap. 1, n. 44).
28 Nonetheless, Bultmann famously commented, “By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.” This quotation is taken from his “The Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” in Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Kundsin, Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research, trans. Frederick C. Grant, rev. ed. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), 60. Still, he was skeptical as to how much of the authentic Jesus tradition could still be discovered (60–61). In spite of the rather obvious influences on his thought due to some of the more subjective, major historians like Benedetto Croce and Robin Collingwood, Bultmann still thought that historical research and real events had their place, as in Rudolf Bultmann, History and Eschatology: The Presence of Eternity, the 1955 Gifford Lectures (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), 118–22, 130–37.
29 Before Bultmann, Karl Barth’s work exhibited a similar de-emphasis on the study of the historical Jesus. In Barth’s case, he did not deny the truth or value of historical events, but rather objected to the prospect of needing historical evidence for our deepest beliefs. Although there are many places that could be cited for this contrast here, arguably the best is Barth’s Church Dogmatics, vol. 4.1, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrence, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), particularly 336–37, 351–53. For both Barth as well as Bultmann, although quite different in their views and conclusions, these more historical inclinations, including the often more negative attitudes and stances, could have been due to the hangover of the failed German Liberal agenda of the nineteenth century. Having witnessed the demise of the old liberal regime as well as being quite influential in its downfall, perhaps one or both of these highly influential scholars had grown jaded by the accumulated weight of their former education, the influential theological tenor at that time, and the constant barrage of the debate itself, at least during their early careers. For all of the very real differences between these two theological giants, they still agreed at the ends of their careers that quests for the historical Jesus took the emphasis too far away from where it needed to be, with the emphasis being placed on the kerygmatic Christ and the need for a deep and radical faith commitment. Apologetic interests were misplaced at best. See Karl Barth, How I Changed My Mind (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1966) for his disagreements with Bultmann’s agenda of demythologization, which reminded Barth too much of the nineteenth-century liberal theology (68), as well as his disapproval of ongoing efforts to discover the historical Jesus (69). For his part, Bultmann as well frequently critiqued attempts to defend key elements of the historical Jesus (esp. the supernatural aspects). In the process, Bultmann also chided Barth more than once from the opposite side, such as in Barth’s attempt to argue that Paul in 1 Cor 15:3–8 was defending the unity and identity of the earliest church preaching rather than the historical evidence for the resurrection! While Bultmann definitely agreed with Barth that attempts to demonstrate the resurrection were misplaced, he thought that Barth was incorrect in the view that Paul did not intend to cite the eyewitnesses as evidence on behalf of the resurrection appearances, as cited in Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” in Kerygma and Myth: A Theological Debate, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), 34–43; Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:292–96 (see chap. 4, n. 84).
30 James M. Robinson, A New Quest for the Historical Jesus (London: SCM, 1959). It has since been dubbed the “Second Quest for the historical Jesus.”
31 Such as Ernst Käsemann’s famous 1953 lecture, “The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” in his Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1964) and also included in The Historical Jesus Quest: Landmarks in the Search for the Jesus of History, ed. Gregory W. Dawes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 279–313; Günther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Irene and Fraser McLuskey with James M. Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), in addition to Robinson’s volume in the previous footnote. It should be remarked that Käsemann thought the empty tomb tradition was reliable (Käsemann in Dawes, 284), though this seems not to have resolved his doubts about the resurrection itself (284, 297) and opposed apologetics as an “embarrassment” (281). While historical facts about Jesus can indeed be established (303, 305, 311), the historical life of Jesus still cannot be reconstructed (311). Except for the comment regarding the empty tomb, Bultmann probably would not object to many of these comments. While Bornkamm speaks positively of the tradition surrounding Jesus’s miracles (130–31), not unlike Marcus Borg’s comments below, and treats the resurrection accounts fairly positively as well (180–86), these views still struggled at not crossing the faith-reason barrier at various junctures (180, 182, 184), again illustrating that while slightly new trends were emerging in significant ways, many key aspects were still within their predecessors’ shadows.
32 An early expression here can be found in Käsemann, “Problem of the Historical Jesus,” 302–11. For much more sophisticated versions, see esp. Stanley Porter, Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research, Library of New Testament Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2000) and Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 156–87 (see chap. 2, n. 35), both of which evaluate the criteria against the criticisms that have been raised. See also Allison, “Traditional Criteria of Authenticity” (see chap. 2, n. 17).
33 Two rather intriguing examples come from a couple of acclaimed and quite lengthy historical tomes on early American history that specifically patterned their approach on the minimal facts method. The first text states: “In this present work, we are taking what Christian philosopher Gary Habermas, in another context, calls ‘the minimalist facts approach.’ We are only going to say what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We are not going to present a hagiography of George Washington, i.e., we will not make him into an ecclesiastical saint.” See Peter A. Lillback with Jerry Newcombe, George Washington’s Sacred Fire (Bryn Mawr, PA: Providence Forum, 2006), 30. In defining the historical method of the second volume, the authors state that they will emphasize “what is incontrovertible evidence.” Thus, “the overall point of this is that it is best to not be too hasty in drawing conclusions about the faith of Thomas Jefferson or the lack thereof. This book will apply what Liberty University professor and author Dr. Gary Habermas has called ‘the minimalist facts approach.’” See Mark A. Beliles and Jerry Newcombe, Doubting Thomas? The Religious Life and Legacy of Thomas Jefferson (New York: James, 2015), 11.
34 For a few details especially on this last comment regarding the use of these criteria by historians, see Gary R. Habermas, “Recent Perspectives” (see chap. 2, n. 16) as well as the next chapter in this volume.
35 Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, esp. chap. 5 (see chap. 2, n. 35).
36 Perrin, 12.
37 Perrin enumerates and defines a few of these criteria as well as applies them to Synoptic Gospel texts (37–47).
38 Stein, Gospels and Tradition, 153–87. Stein lists an impressive number of mostly earlier critical commentators who utilized positively one or more of these criteria, including Perrin, C. H. Dodd, T. W. Manson, R. S. Barbour, Joachim Jeremias, Reginald H. Fuller, David Catchpole, Ben Meyer, Richard Longenecker, Kenneth Grayston, N. L. McEleney, and Grant Osborne (159n13 for this list of scholars).
39 I have often remarked to my graduate students over the decades that one of the indelible marks of Bultmannian and similar influences was the general insistence on the crucial importance and even the centrality of Jesus’s resurrection proclamation, while at the same time only speaking exceptionally sparingly of the relevant historical events themselves and the key details. Large volumes of New Testament material in this tradition would frequently mention the overall slogans with only brief treatments of the historical, and even many of the theological, particulars. A major instance is especially the early work of German New Testament scholar Willi Marxsen, who devoted an entire series of lectures at Münster University to the subject of Jesus’s resurrection and then, like Perrin, wrote an entire book on the subject. Sizably longer than Perrin’s and delivered in German, Marxsen’s work could even be considered a bold undertaking. Although Marxsen drew a number of conclusions that hinted that the times were changing, it is obvious he had still remained closer to the older trends than had Perrin. Marxsen repeated often some of the key mantras from some members of the earlier No Quest period. Namely, there still remained a distinct bifurcation between what may actually have happened to the historical Jesus and with the resurrection, while still insisting that this was perhaps the greatest, even central, meaning of Christianity, both in the New Testament as well as now. For example: “Jesus is dead. But his offer has not thereby lost its validity.” The quotation is from Willi Marxsen, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 147, emphasis in original. Similar comments appear in this volume on pages 77, 110, 128, 141–42, 144, where it is clear enough that although Jesus remains dead today, Jesus still, somehow, reaches out to us through the faith of the church! Note that Marxsen’s later text on the same subject moved even closer in some respects to the newer trends, as in Marxsen, Jesus and Easter: Did God Raise the Historical Jesus from the Dead?, trans. Victor Paul Furnish (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990). A major contrast and even tension is observable between pages 42, 44–45, 53–54, 70–73, 76–79, 84–85, 89–91, as compared with pages 45–47, 53, 69, 79–81.
40 Norman Perrin, The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 78–84. A number of hangovers from older forms of criticism are apparent in Perrin’s comments, such as treating the Gospel resurrection narratives, including the empty tomb, as mythological reports (34–38, 55–58, 61–77, 80). While much more positive regarding Paul’s testimony (80–82), Perrin mentions briefly but appears to equivocate somewhat on the date of the formula in 1 Cor 15:3–7, attesting both that it is “very much older than the date of [Paul’s] letter,” which he places at about AD 55, along with the hint that it could be just a little earlier than this composition (79). Virtually no major critical scholars in recent decades have taken a view like this today regarding the date of this creedal text. Perrin also remarks, “Scholars are coming increasingly to the conclusion that the empty tomb tradition is an interpretation of the event . . . rather than a description of an aspect of the event itself” (80), as well as avoiding a discussion of what the admitted historical “evidence” might indicate for Jesus’s appearances (82). It should be noted carefully that the primary point of these remarks here is not that Perrin somehow refuses to speak more positively on these subjects (especially given my somewhat surprised mindset the very first time I read these comments many years ago!). After all, Perrin was writing several decades ago when some scholars were still prone to take more negative views of the empty tomb and Gospel appearance data as a whole. The chief angle here is that a number of these remarks are now quite dated and that critical scholars have frequently grown much more positive on a number of these evaluations since Perrin’s work. Researchers obviously cannot be held responsible when mainstream views change after their time! So the effort here was an attempt to document Perrin’s research in this volume in terms of contemporary changes in theological trends, as his thinking here occupied a bit of a “halfway house” between still appreciating some of Bultmann’s ideas (38, 58, 77), a New Quest for the historical backdrop, and his still coming to appreciate a few of the emerging trends in the Third Quest approach, which were in flux at the time of Perrin’s writing.
41 Again, for a critical evaluation of these criteria that still concludes they are valuable but that we need to be more nuanced in the way we present the results, such as concluding that a saying or event is “possibly authentic,” see Allison, “Traditional Criteria of Authenticity,” 30.
42 For explications of more textual criteria, see Ehrman, New Testament, 201–7, 229–32 (see chap. 4, n. 34).
43 It may simply be a misperception on my part, but it seems like Ehrman is a little more careful than most critical scholars when mentioning the early belief or reputation held among those of Jesus’s day, including even his enemies, that Jesus was a miracle worker and an exorcist. It has been said that this is an almost unanimous opinion among critical scholars today. As Marcus Borg states quite strongly: “Despite the difficulty which miracles pose for the modern mind, on historical grounds it is virtually indisputable that Jesus was a healer and exorcist.” The quotation is taken from Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, 61, also 59 (see chap. 2, n. 32). Usually scholars report these occurrences quite straightforwardly, and so it seems to be simply assumed or taken for granted in the critical context that it is people’s views that are being discussed here and conceded, not necessarily the scholar’s own private position. This issue potentially has some ramifications elsewhere, but here it will simply be noted that quite often when the subject arises, Ehrman frequently offers rather strong caveats that he is discussing Jesus’s “reputation” or the beliefs of others. A few instances are found in Ehrman, New Testament, 240–41, 252–53, and Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 192–200, 227–29.
44 Ehrman includes a treatment of many such items in New Testament, 232–53.
45 Ehrman, quotation on 233; additional details on 248–50.
46 Ehrman, 253. Ehrman makes this comment and ones like it quite freely. He states nearly the same thing almost word for word in Jesus, 231.
47 Ehrman, Jesus, 229–30. Other strong comments regarding the historicity of these and other surrounding events are reported in 229–34.
48 As mentioned, in his dissertation Benjamin C. F. Shaw summarizes this research from almost two dozen critical scholars who compiled inventories, and most of the researchers were not conservative. See Shaw, “Philosophy of History,” 153–68 (see chap. 4, n. 85).
49 Another research volume that both affirms and provides additional confirmation specifically for the minimal facts approach is the work of Bass, Bedrock of Christianity (see chap. 4, n. 85). After providing a plethora of scholars who defend or allow these facts, Bass notes that 99 percent of researchers affirm the key events surrounding Jesus’s death, resurrection, and appearances, plus a few other connected pieces of data (see esp. Bass, 1–14, with this percentage citation being found on 11n18). Still other examples include Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 122–26; Johnson, Living Jesus, 10, 130–32 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Thorwald Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship: Interpretive Models, Biblical Reflections, Theological Consequences (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995), 184–85.
50 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 334.
51 Even the small sample of scholars in this chapter indicates how differing overall persuasions do not necessarily require widespread disagreement on individual events.
52 While some scholars either hold or at least entertain the possibility of Jesus being buried in the ground, in a common grave, or otherwise, a private burial seemingly remains at least a majority position.
53 As I have noted in virtually every published list of these facts, the historicity of the empty tomb is not as widely accepted as are the other data here. But it is still accepted by a significant majority of contemporary scholars, as we will argue later.
54 As mentioned more than once already, the reason for the varying numbers of minimal facts in different publications is most of all because the total is fairly arbitrary to this extent: if it is the case that the majority of critical scholars often recognize additional facts anyway, then shortening the number to twelve, then to an even fewer number of about half that or even less, is not strictly necessary in the first place. Still, the decreasing size of these lists remains a valuable exercise to develop the briefer number for several reasons. Perhaps most of all, there may be a small number of skeptics for whom the minimal numbering is more advantageous. Further, it would obviously be a more focused study to do the necessary spadework in showing the historical basis for a fewer number of events, as well as to get even a general idea of those researchers who recognize them. The smaller sample of minimal facts will more likely garner larger acceptance percentages as well, since the emphasis is on the more widely accepted occurrences, even though at this point we are talking about only very small increases, since the larger lists receive sufficient recognition and factual support on their own.
55 A further clarification may be helpful and interesting with regard to those who may enjoy “inside details” to some additional specifics of the minimal facts argument. When Mike Licona wrote his PhD dissertation and his excellent, subsequent tome on the subject of Jesus’s resurrection, he reported a phone call with me in 2008 where just three minimal facts were utilized: Jesus’s death by crucifixion; the disciples’ experiences, which they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus; and Paul’s own experience, which he also believed to be a resurrection appearance; see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 302–3. Without much question, these could well be the strongest of the group if we also add the early date at which these events were proclaimed. Four years earlier in our coauthored volume, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (see chap. 4, n. 2), Licona and I had listed four minimal facts by adding James’s own experience, which he likewise thought was a resurrection appearance of Jesus (43–77), and by appending the empty tomb as a separate “outsider” occurrence and referring to it as a “+ 1” argument, though not one of the minimal facts. When subsequently responding to Mike in the journal article “Minimal Facts Approach,” 24–25, I suggested the caveat that perhaps it was time to separate out three more facts that were more or less already implied in the list: the early date just mentioned, the centrality of the resurrection proclamation, and James’s experience. Often I had also separated the disciples’ life transformations for their willingness to die for these teachings. Actually, Mike and I had already included all four of these others in our coauthored work, with James being added as his own point, plus we had conflated the other three within these first four facts. The interested reader can check out examples of each of these “submerged” elements within our two chapters (3–4): the very early time element (52–53, 56, 63, 68, 221–23), the central importance of the message of Jesus’s resurrection (52, 56, 76), and the disciples’ life transformations to the extent of being willing to die for their faith (50, 59–60, 63, 68, 223–24). All told, it seemed like it is just perhaps time to move ahead and increase (or perhaps the operative term is simply to “unpack”) the list of minimal facts as done (or at least started) in other publications. As it turned out, Mike had also been thinking the same way and was interested in considering still other candidates, such as James’s experience (as we had already done previously), the bodily nature of the resurrection appearances, the group nature of some of the appearances, Jesus’s predictions of his death and resurrection, and even the empty tomb (our “+ 1” fact in Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 69–77). For these additional details on Mike’s thoughts here as well, see Licona, “In Reply,” 55–56 (see chap. 4, n. 2). As intimated, then, even more steps in this direction could still be taken. But the “6 + 1” configuration is enough for this study.
56 Nevertheless, the “6 + 1” probable facts conformation is the choice here. The empty tomb is an add-on that is not considered to be one of the minimal facts since it does not quite rise to the level of the others in terms of the overwhelming degree of scholarly acceptance.